Morpheine

by Emmy Hennings (1885-1948)
translated by Howard A. Landman


Morfin

Wir warten auf ein letztes Abenteuer
Was kümmert uns der Sonnenschein?
Hochaufgetürmte Tage stürzen ein
Unruhige Nächte - Gebet im Fegefeuer.

Wir lesen auch nicht mehr die Tagespost
Nur manchmal lächeln wir still in die Kissen,
Weil wir alles wissen, und gerissen
Fliegen wir hin und her im Fieberfrost.

Mögen Menschen eilen und streben
Heut fällt der Regen noch trüber
Wir treiben haltlos durchs Leben
Und schlafen, verwirrt, hinüber...

Morpheine

We wait for one last adventure
What do we care for sunshine?
Days piled high collapse
Restless nights - prayer in purgatory.

Then too, we no longer read the daily mail
Only sometimes we smile quietly in the pillows,
Because we know everything, and cannily
Fly back and forth in fever chill.

Though people scurry and strive
Today the rain falls even more drearily
We drift aimlessly through life
And sleep, perplexed, thereafter...

Copyright ©2002,2021 Howard A. Landman

Sonnets To Orpheus II, 2

So wie dem Meister manchmal das eilig
nähere Blatt den wirklichen Strich
abnimmt: so nehmen oft Spiegel das heilig
einzige Lächeln der Mädchen in sich,

wenn sie den Morgen erproben, allein, -
oder im Glanze der dienenden Lichter.
Und in das Atmen der echten Gesichter,
später, fällt nur ein Widerschein.

Was haben Augen einst ins umrußte
lange Verglühn der Kamine geschaut:
Blicke des Lebens, für immer verlorne.

Ach, der Erde, wer kennt die Verluste?
Nur, wer mit dennoch preisendem Laut
sänge das Herz, das in Ganze geborne.

Just like the near-at-hand paper he snatches
sometimes captures the master's genuine
stroke: so a mirror often catches
the sacred single smile of a maiden

when she tries on the morning, all
alone - or by flattering lights' glow.
But where her true face's breath would fall,
later, just a reflection shows.

What did eyes once see in the slow
sooty smoldering of the hearth?
Glimpses of life, forever gone.

Who knows the losses of the earth?
Only he, whose praise goes on
singing the heart that is born in the whole.

Copyright ©1998,2021 Howard A. Landman

The Fourth Elegy

by Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926), from Duino Elegies (1923)
translated by Howard A. Landman


O Bäume Lebens, o wann winterlich?
Wir sind nicht einig. Sind nicht wie die Zug-
vögel verständigt. Überholt und spät,
so drängen wir uns plötzlich Winden auf
und fallen ein auf teilnahmslosen Teich.
Blühn und verdorrn ist uns zugleich bewußt.
Und irgendwo gehn Löwen noch und wissen,
solang sie herrlich sind, von keiner Ohnmacht.

Uns aber, wo wir Eines meinen, ganz,
ist schon des andern Aufwand fühlbar. Feindschaft
ist uns das Nächste. Treten Liebende
nicht immerfort an Ränder, eins im andern,
die sich versprachen Weite, Jagd und Heimat.
Da wird für eines Augenblickes Zeichnung
ein Grund von Gegenteil bereitet, mühsam,
daß wir sie sähen; denn man ist sehr deutlich
mit uns. Wir kennen den Kontur
des Fühlens nicht: nur, was ihn formt von außen.
Wer saß nicht bang vor seines Herzens Vorhang?
Der schlug sich auf: die Szenerie war Abschied.
Leicht zu verstehen. Der bekannte Garten,
und schwankte leise: dann erst kam der Tänzer.
Nicht der. Genug! Und wenn er auch so leicht tut,
er ist verkleidet und er wird ein Bürger
und geht durch seine Küche in die Wohnung.
Ich will nicht diese halbgefüllten Masken,
lieber die Puppe. Die ist voll. Ich will
den Balg aushalten und den Draht und ihr
Gesicht aus Aussehn. Hier. Ich bin davor.
Wenn auch die Lampen ausgehn, wenn mir auch
gesagt wird: Nichts mehr —, wenn auch von der Bühne
das Leere herkommt mit dem grauen Luftzug,
wenn auch von meinen stillen Vorfahrn keiner
mehr mit mir dasitzt, keine Frau, sogar
der Knabe nicht mehr mit dem braunen Schielaug:
Ich bleibe dennoch. Es giebt immer Zuschaun.

Hab ich nicht recht? Du, der um mich so bitter
das Leben schmeckte, meines kostend, Vater,
den ersten trüben Aufguß meines Müssens,
da ich heranwuchs, immer wieder kostend
und, mit dem Nachgeschmack so fremder Zukunft
beschäftigt, prüftest mein beschlagnes Aufschaun, —
der du, mein Vater, seit du tot bist, oft
in meiner Hoffnung, innen in mir, Angst hast,
und Gleichmut, wie ihn Tote haben, Reiche
von Gleichmut, aufgiebst für mein bißchen Schicksal,
hab ich nicht recht? Und ihr, hab ich nicht recht,
die ihr mich liebtet für den kleinen Anfang
Liebe zu euch, von dem ich immer abkam,
weil mir der Raum in eurem Angesicht,
da ich ihn liebte, überging in Weltraum,
in dem ihr nicht mehr wart …: wenn mir zumut ist,
zu warten vor der Puppenbühne, nein,
so völlig hinzuschaun, daß, um mein Schauen
am Ende aufzuwiegen, dort als Spieler
ein Engel hinmuß, der die Bälge hochreißt.
Engel und Puppe: dann ist endlich Schauspiel.
Dann kommt zusammen, was wir immerfort
entzwein, indem wir da sind. Dann entsteht
aus unsern Jahreszeiten erst der Umkreis
des ganzen Wandelns. Über uns hinüber
spielt dann der Engel. Sieh, die Sterbenden,
sollten sie nicht vermuten, wie voll Vorwand
das alles ist, was wir hier leisten. Alles
ist nicht es selbst. O Stunden in der Kindheit,
da hinter den Figuren mehr als nur
Vergangnes war und vor uns nicht die Zukunft.
Wir wuchsen freilich und wir drängten manchmal,
bald groß zu werden, denen halb zulieb,
die andres nicht mehr hatten, als das Großsein.
Und waren doch, in unserem Alleingehn,
mit Dauerndem vergnügt und standen da
im Zwischenraume zwischen Welt und Spielzeug,
an einer Stelle, die seit Anbeginn
gegründet war für einen reinen Vorgang.

Wer zeigt ein Kind, so wie es steht? Wer stellt
es ins Gestirn und giebt das Maß des Abstands
ihm in die Hand? Wer macht den Kindertod
aus grauem Brot, das hart wird, — oder läßt
ihn drin im runden Mund, so wie den Gröps
von einem schönen Apfel? … Mörder sind
leicht einzusehen. Aber dies: den Tod,
den ganzen Tod, noch vor dem Leben so
sanft zu enthalten und nicht bös zu sein,
ist unbeschreiblich.

Oh trees of life, oh when wintry?
We are not in unison. Are not in formation like
migratory birds. Fallen behind and late,
so we force ourselves suddenly on winds
and fall into an unsympathetic pond.
We are simultaneously aware of blooming and withering.
And somewhere lions still prowl and don't know,
as long as they are magnificent, of any frailty.

But for us, where we intend one thing, entirely,
Some other effort is already perceptible. Hostility
is the closest to us. Don't lovers always
step on each other's boundaries,
to whom they promised vastness, hunting and home.
There, in a momentary sketch
grounds for opposition are prepared, arduously,
that we see them; for they are very candid
with us. We do not know the contour
of feelings: only what forms them from outside.
Who did not sit anxiously before his heart's curtain?
It whipped open: the scenery was farewell.
Easy to understand. The familiar garden,
and soft swaying: only then came the dancer.
Not that one. Enough! And even though he moves so easily,
he is costumed, and he becomes a normal citizen
and enters through the kitchen when he returns home.
I don't want those half-filled masks,
I'd rather have a puppet. It's full. I will
endure the manikin and the wire and its
facade of a face. Here. I am in front of it.
Even if the lamps go out, even if
I am told: Nothing more -, even when the emptiness
comes from the stage with the gray breeze,
even when no one from my silent ancestors
sits there with me, no woman, not even
the boy with the brown squint-eye:
I remain nevertheless. There are always spectators.

Am I not right? You, for whom life around me
tasted so bitter, father, after you sampled mine,
the first murky infusion of my imperatives,
as I grew up, tasting it again and again
and, preoccupied with the aftertaste of so strange
a future, inspected my misty admiration, -
you, my father, who ever since you died, often
were afraid of my innermost hopes,
and indifference, as the dead have, a treasure
of indifference, for my smidgen of fate,
am I not right? And you, am I not right,
who loved me for the infancy of my
love for you, from which I always strayed,
because the space in your face..,
when I loved you, passed into world-space,
in which you were no more...: when I feel compelled
to wait in front of the puppet stage, no,
to look so absolutely that, in order to balance
my looking finally, there as an actor
an angel has to go, who raises the manikins.
Angel and puppet: then there is finally acting.
Then comes together what we constantly
divide, just by being there. Only then
from our seasons arises the whole cycle
of change. Over and above us
then the angel plays. Look, shouldn't the dying
suspect how full of pretense everything is
that we accomplish here. Everything
is not itself. Oh hours in childhood,
when behind the characters there was more than
the past and before us not the future.
We grew of course and sometimes we pushed,
to grow up sooner, half for the fondness
of those who had nothing more than being big.
And yet were, in our solitude,
amused by permanence and standing there
in the space between world and toys,
in a place that from the very start
was founded for a pure process.

Who shows a child how things stand? Who positions
him in the stars and puts the measure of distance
into his hand? Who makes the child's death
from gray bread, which becomes hard, - or leaves
it in his round mouth, like the prickly core
from a nice apple? ... Murderers are
easy to understand. But this: death,
the totality of death, even before life so
gently to embrace and not to be evil,
is indescribable.

Copyright ©2021 Howard A. Landman

Sonnets To Orpheus I, 13

Voller Apfel, Birne und Banane,
Stachelbeere ... Alles dieses spricht
Tod und Leben in den Mund ... Ich ahne ...
Lest es einem Kind vom Angesicht,

wenn er sie erschmeckt. Dies kommt von weit.
Wird euch langsam namenlos im Munde?
Wo sonst Worte waren, fließen Funde,
aus dem Fruchtfleisch überrascht befreit.

Wagt zu sagen, was ihr Apfel nennt.
Diese Süße, die sie erst verdichtet,
um, im Schmecken leise aufgerichtet,

klar zu werden, wach und transparent,
doppeldeutig, sonnig, erdig, hiesig -:
O Ehrfahrung, Fühlung, Freude -, riesig!

Plump apple, pear, gooseberry, sleek
banana ... All of these speak
death and life in the mouth ... I surmise ...
read it in the child's eyes,

who tastes them. This comes from far away indeed.
Do they grow slowly nameless in the mouth?
In place of words, discoveries flow out
of fruit-flesh, astonishingly freed.

Say what you call apple: dare.
Sweet juices arise so readily there
in the tasting, at first intense,

to become clear, awake, transparent,
suggestive, sunny, earthy, present: -
Oh experience, feeling, joy, - immense!

Translation notes:

Connection from previous sonnet: “The Earth gives” => “fruit”

Line 7: “sonst” = “else / otherwise / usually (but not now)”. So more literally “Where usually words were, …”.

Line 13: “doppeldeutig” = “double-meaninged / ambiguous”


Copyright ©1998,1999,2021 Howard A. Landman

Ὁ βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή

Thought for the day:

Ὁ βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς, ἡ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή, ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή.

Life is short, skill is long, opportunity fleeting, experimentation perilous, judgment difficult.

Hippocrates

Here’s to all you pursuing the skill, seizing the opportunity, trying the experiment, and making the hard calls. (Note that τέχνη is often translated as “art”, but actually means “technique”, “technology”, “craft”, or “skill” rather than “fine art”.)

Howard Bloom, The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates

I think it was Paul Halmos who said that, for a book to be about something, it must NOT be about a great many other things.  Howard Bloom seems unable to follow this prescription.  The God Problem contains many interesting facts, most of them completely unrelated to its main quest of explaining how a universe can create complexity.  In Bloom’s chatty, verbose, and peripatetic peregrinations, the very first sentence which sheds any light on the book’s nominal topic occurs on page 431.

Bloom’s choice of writing the entire book in the 2nd-person-as-substitute-for-1st-person (“you are Jewish”) is odd, at best confusing and at worst irritating.  The book is repetitive.  Like the movie The Hobbit, it could have been made half as long and twice as good with some decent editing.

What makes this especially frustrating is that Bloom does, occasionally, as if by accident, touch on some important and difficult topics, like the difference between “information” and “meaning”.  But he seems unable to stay focused on them long enough to make much progress.  He also seems unaware of much previous work.

I suppose I should mention that the book contains 4 false statements.  I leave it to the interested reader to find the 4.

Using the Mandelbrot set as a model for how complexity arises has some merits, but also some drawbacks. Yes it’s a simple iterated rule that creates immense amounts of detail.  But it doesn’t create any meaning, or even information: the Kolmogorov complexity of the whole thing is no greater than that of the equation generating it.  If you want to explain the complexity of, say, a eukaryotic genome, you have to look elsewhere.

The kind of complexity we are interested in requires both nonlinearity (gain, chaos, solitons) and entropy creation (non-equilibrium thermodynamics, metabolism).  But Bloom is prevented from understanding any of this by his insistence that the law of entropy is simply wrong.  Life and evolution climb upstream against a constant flow of degradation; how they manage to do that is one of the key components of the answer Bloom purports to seek, but refuses to see.

Shannon entropy is not the best measure for attacking this problem; this has been well-known for some time.  The state of maximum entropy, total randomness, is dead because it has no structure.  The state of minimum entropy, a perfect crystal close to absolute zero, is dead because it has no variety.  Life, and all complexity generation, has to exist in between order and chaos.  Bloom spends so much time flogging Shannon’s dead horse that he is unable to say much about what alternative he prefers.  He seems unaware of Fisher Information, and makes little or no use of Kolmogorov complexity.  We could use a workable theory of meaning.  Bloom is probably right that any such theory has to be receiver-dependent, but he fails to actually propose one.  This makes his contribution eerily parallel to, and about as useless as, the creationist information theory of Dr. Werner Gitt (In the Beginning was Information).

This book bills itself as a rocket to new heights of understanding, but in the end it feels more like a bunch of firecrackers going off on the ground: lots of little pyrotechnics, but no real progress.

Words Fail

by Howard A. Landman


I could go outside and start to count the stars up in the sky
But you know I'd never finish, if I counted till I died
And numbers wouldn't change the way they make me feel inside
Words Fail

I could try to find a formula that weighs what life is worth
Or just say that I'm happy to be living on this earth
But to talk of how my spirit feels at one with death and birth
Words Fail

        And if I don't say any more, don't think I love life less
        My tongue falls silent faced with things that words cannot express

Now in this world there are some who have, and others who have not
But we're gathered here together to give thanks for what we've got
And we don't have to count it, for it surely is a lot
Words Fail

I could reminisce about our conversations and good meals
Give praise for how we reach for what is right and what is real
But that wouldn't start to cover all the things you make me feel
Words Fail

        And if I don't say any more, don't think I love you less
        My tongue falls silent faced with things that words cannot express

Temelec, Thanksgiving 1997 & San Jose, late November 1997 – January 1998
3rd verse, River Rock, Thanksgiving 2001